And so the shackles have been cast away. Once banned from accepting commissions for steering clients towards certain insurers, major US brokers are once more permitted to pocket the controversial payments.

In one ironic swoop, fairness has been restored at the expense of consumer protection. Big brokers, much like their smaller cousins, will resume doing business the way they used to before 2005.

An important plank of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s legacy lies dismantled, the man himself offering only meek commentary to the media, telling Bloomberg that contingency commissions created “inherent conflicts” and subsequently “improper practices”.

Mr Spitzer, the man once dubbed “The Steamroller”, offered no criticism of New York, Illinois and Connecticut lawmakers. Nor did he attempt to defend the rules he once so passionately pursued.

Instead, the rules he enshrined to prevent methods described as “classic cartel behaviour” died with a whimper. A chorus of brokers, singing a belated commitment to “transparency” and “acting in the best interest of the client”, offered the only eulogy.

Well, not quite. The Risk and Insurance Management Society (RIMS) did throw up its arms in disbelief, announcing its “dismay” at the decision.

RIMS says it will keep pressure on insurers to honour and go above their commitments, urging them to “enact full mandatory disclosure requirements that will protect the insurance consumer”.

But the key industry voice of support for Spitzer’s crusade has the most to gain by the return of commissions.

Willis CEO Joe Plumeri shares many parallels with Mr Spitzer. Both hail from the Bronx in New York City and went on to study law, Mr Spitzer at Harvard and Mr Plumeri at New York. Both shared a distaste for contingency commissions and share a belief the payment system is too open to abuse.

“How will we look as an industry if brokers can earn commissions from insurers for giving them business and not for the value we provide to our clients?” Plumeri asked delegates at a recent event.

“We’re already one of the least trusted industries globally. People aren’t focusing on how we as an industry provide the capital and help pick up the pieces. Instead, they’re looking at how we are compensated – and they’re not happy, with good reason.”

Willis hasn’t taken commissions since 2004. Mr Plumeri has enshrined the refusal of commissions as bedrock Willis policy, one that puts him at a commercial disadvantage, at least in the short term.

Aon and Marsh will resume accepting payments, while Arthur J. Gallagher, released from a ban in 2009, has already starting counting the extra income.

However, the relaxation of commission rules may not diminish Willis’ earnings.

Firstly, expected earnings from commission may be lower than expected as insurers rebuild their capital base. The kind of fat commissions paid to brokers before the credit crunch may be a thing of the past.

Secondly, Spitzer and Mr Plumeri have raised awareness of contingency commissions among buyers. Many were not aware brokers were swayed by fees and are now demanding greater disclosure in how brokers peruse the market.

One analyst, when asked about the downfall of Spitzer’s rules, commented his rules “never made much sense”.

“Saying that a limited number of companies cannot collect revenue that are fully legal just because he’s mad at them, when the people that misbehaved are gone – that seems like more of a stretch,” Stifel Nicolaus told Bloomberg.

What Mr Nicolaus fails to realise is removal of bad people from a bad system doesn’t remove the risk. The incentive to act on behalf of the individual and not the client remains intact.

With Spitzer forced out in disgrace in the wake of a prostitution scandal, Mr Plumeri is left to fight the battle alone. As long as he remains at the helm of Willis, the issue of contingency payments will not go away quietly.